|
Post by flexspread on Jan 16, 2008 10:47:07 GMT -6
I'll admit that I am guilty of the "what should I run" question and I agree with other posts that without completely knowing the situation, the best answer that someone could give me would be what they run, why they run it, the pros and cons to it, and the personnel that it uses and emphasizes and I guess that when I asked the question I realized this and I wanted to know these things about different types of offenses. The reason I asked the question is that I am not all knowing and have run pro I and spread as a player in high school, college and now as a coach. I had no other knowledge of offenses except those I have played against and when I played against them I didn't care why they were running what they were running but only what I needed to do to try and stop it. I know that nobody can fully understand another coach's situation and the talent level of their kids but my thinking is that there are thousands of coaches on this board and if someone was in a similar situation they may have things to say that can help me. I thought that is one of the things this board is for.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jan 16, 2008 10:51:46 GMT -6
Its probably a good idea to study as much as you can...away from what you already do...just to see what else is out there.
I have studied option, wing t, single wing, multiple pro I, double wing and now run and shoot.
I certainly dont think id change my whole system for one or two players though. To me that is not running a program. I think you want to give your program an identity. Perhaps the tool box is the identity, that and the core values and conditioning program.
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Jan 16, 2008 10:59:48 GMT -6
just a few random thoughts here... since I'm one of the "coach what you know" guys. 1. Every system MUST be tweaked/adapted to personnel, but a system that is replaced by another might be a great short term answer, but if you look at the overall program like a long term investment- continuity is often what separates the perennial powers from those who have a great year (may even win a title) and then disappear for 10 years. 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:2. If you were to look at our offense from year to year, you would think we have never done anything different. If you looked at it in 1992 compared to now... you would likely see vast differences (more in terms of shifting, motion, formations, and evolution of plays and play series). Changes are subtle and created by continual learning and a continual development of a philosophy. (this would apply to our D as well, though changes have been less drastic). 3. Whenever something needs to be changed, the process (for me) is generally like this: First, I ponder, draw stuff up and create something "new" for us to do that has never been seen before (I am such an innovator ). Next, I research who has already done it, since I know someone has. Most of the time I will remember someone, somewhere who has done something similar, and I study the heck out of it. Then I try to see how it adapts to our kids and equally importantly to our system, Finally we attempt it, and if it works we run with it, if not we modify it until the idea has overstepped its usefulness and is scrapped. 4. "Coaching what you know" implies that you have a knowledge and understanding of the system (which you can learn), an ability to plug your players in to that system (again, which you can learn), and an understanding of how that system (or parts from that system) fit in to the good things you are already doing- which must be developed and adjusted (which you must create). Really, that is where the innovation comes in... not a whole lot of "new" out there- but the applications are seemingly limitless. Using those applications are what separate good schemes from great ones... yet that is still only a fraction of the difference between the great teams and mediocre ones. fbdoc pointed this out on the small school thread. Scheme/system is an important part of the equation- but there is so much more: team unity, team identity, character, work ethic, buy in, selflessness, focus, emphasis on eliminating mistakes (which is almost our mantra... we are not very good most years, but we almost never beat ourselves and that has translated nicely in to winning over a sustained period of time), off season training, confidence, etc... this list could go on and on. My main contention is that the "coach what you know" stance is solid: to change is fine, but change for a purpose and understand the change you are making- changing to the offense or defense de jour (and I've seen a lot of people do this... the only reason I loved having Callahan at Nebraska is many teams went to the WCO without really understanding it... good for us when we are on D) seems to cause two negatives: 1. poor performance and 2. a bad rap for what really is a solid scheme.
|
|
|
Post by spos21ram on Jan 16, 2008 11:09:06 GMT -6
BY "coaching what you know"...that doesn't mean you have to coach exactly the offense you know best. If you are an under center option guru. Know everything there is to know about it, ran it for years at one school then leave and then get hired as a head coach at a new HS....
For example then you would come on here and ask..."I just got hired at a new school. I ran the wishbone option in HS and the flexbone in college, was an assistant to an option coach for the last 6 years and now I'm at a new school with only 100 kids in it and we have better personnel for a spread offense. What should I do?"
Simple solution. Coach what you know best and incorporate it into a spread offense. Use the terminology you know and use the same coaching style just tweak and clean up your strategy which now would be spread formations, a little more throwing, and running the option out of spread formations.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Jan 16, 2008 11:28:50 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. Exactly. We have won the state championship three times. The first time, 2000, our QB was a great passer, a D.1 prospect. The second, 2001, we also had a D.1 prospect at QB but he was a D.1 DB not a QB. As a passer he couldn't hit a bull in the butt at 10 yards. In Our 2006 QB was very talented but he was a soph who wasn't ready to be "the franchise". Our offensive playbook changed very little durinfg that time. We had enough tools in the box.
|
|
|
Post by spos21ram on Jan 16, 2008 11:38:25 GMT -6
Also it's a proven fact, statistcis show that good teachers are successful because they know their content area inside out. If you've been a Double Wing guy your whole life it doesn't mean you can coach the Run & Shoot. It just may take time before you know enough and have enough expericence with it to be successful. So the 1st year you take over a program with a brand new philosophy and offense you migt end being 6-6. The following year you iron out the kinks, figure out what works and what doesn't then you go 9-3.
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Jan 16, 2008 12:24:32 GMT -6
This is all great discussion!
Seriously, every coach on the board should read this thread. There are some really good philosophies being thrown around on here. I think we'd all be better coaches if we could absorb some of this stuff and put it in our own philosophy "tool box."
|
|
|
Post by jraybern on Jan 16, 2008 12:41:57 GMT -6
For those who stuck with a scheme and had success after running it for a while......do you believe that it all comes down to execution? I mean are your teams better because the Os have been blocking the same Xs for the last 10 years or is it that you've had time to teach the down block to all of your kids in the program from pee wees though the high school and the benefits are being reaped after several years? Are you a better coach now than 10 years ago? In what area have you gotten better the most - in scheme or in teaching technique? I would guess technique. You are a better team because the kids can execute because you are better at teaching them how to make the blocks you are asking them to make.
Do you think Smith Center was as awesome this year as they were because they have ran the "Barta Bone" since kindegarten or is it because they do such a great job out there teaching the kids to block and fake (and not to mention the value of the weight room - they physically outmatched EVERY opponent ALL year).
My point is, if in my spread game I had plays where the line blocked down and the back kicked out for a QB offtackle play and now I go to the single wing and have the same play just from a set that allows me to do more things with the guys I have for the next 4 years, and in 4 years I go back to the spread and have the same play again, were is the problem or inconsistency for the kids?
Maybe I am arguing for this "toolbox" idea that others are suggesting.
Am I making sense that the thing I am advocating against is a wholesale commitment to a scheme that will not allow your players NOW to be as successful as possible. I guess I would say any double winger should have a plan for a Dan Marino in the backfield. An air raid coach should have a plan for a team like Nebraska in their day. I think at the small school level, which is what I have been talking about all along (and keep in mind small school in Texas isn't the same as in Kansas) a coach needs to be very flexible in terms of scheme.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jan 16, 2008 12:54:25 GMT -6
I think if a coach commits to a system he becomes good at coaching it, teaching it, analyzing and trouble shooting it...you have to get past the "info stage" and even past the "theory stage" and into the "expert stage"... if you stick to the same stuff you learn what others do to attack or defend you and you even become more efficient in your practices, film study etc.
the thing is BE GOOD AT WHAT YOU DO.
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Jan 16, 2008 12:55:43 GMT -6
For those who stuck with a scheme and had success after running it for a while......do you believe that it all comes down to execution? I mean are your teams better because the Os have been blocking the same Xs for the last 10 years or is it that you've had time to teach the down block to all of your kids in the program from pee wees though the high school and the benefits are being reaped after several years? Are you a better coach now than 10 years ago? In what area have you gotten better the most - in scheme or in teaching technique? I would guess technique. You are a better team because the kids can execute because you are better at teaching them how to make the blocks you are asking them to make. Do you think Smith Center was as awesome this year as they were because they have ran the "Barta Bone" since kindegarten or is it because they do such a great job out there teaching the kids to block and fake (and not to mention the value of the weight room - they physically outmatched EVERY opponent ALL year). My point is, if in my spread game I had plays where the line blocked down and the back kicked out for a QB offtackle play and now I go to the single wing and have the same play just from a set that allows me to do more things with the guys I have for the next 4 years, and in 4 years I go back to the spread and have the same play again, were is the problem or inconsistency for the kids? Maybe I am arguing for this "toolbox" idea that others are suggesting. Am I making sense that the thing I am advocating against is a wholesale commitment to a scheme that will not allow your players NOW to be as successful as possible. I guess I would say any double winger should have a plan for a Dan Marino in the backfield. An air raid coach should have a plan for a team like Nebraska in their day. I think at the small school level, which is what I have been talking about all along (and keep in mind small school in Texas isn't the same as in Kansas) a coach needs to be very flexible in terms of scheme. This DW coach has plenty of pass plays in the playbook for a Dan Marino, but we would still run our core offense and supplement with more of Marino's favorite pass plays.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 16, 2008 12:57:48 GMT -6
Some good stuff in this thread. Big thing is don't get caught up in some of these labels or phrases, each is intended to "help" but each can be taken too far. "Coach what you know," taken too literally, means you never change and never learn. But as many have pointed out, that's obviously not the point. Coach what you know is just a warning to KISS it and to not get snookered by the flavor of the week. But if you actually learn how to run it, then it says nothing about change.
The line between a "toolbox" and a "grab bag" is kind of like a pick and a rub: it's a toolbox when it works and it's grab bag when it doesn't. There's clearly an equilibria, however. The devil's in the details.
Bottom line: anything you coach you should be well versed in the hows and the whys. Whether it was because you played in it or because you spent lots of time with Paul Johnson or Mike Leach or whether you have simply done it for years, those are different reasons. And obviously you need to have things that let you attack and react but not so much it overloads your players and limits your reps. I like the focus on yourself/John Wooden approach to this. Particularly if you are "unique" and other teams don't face what you do much I think you can really focus on yourself.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jan 16, 2008 12:58:46 GMT -6
I guess I would say any double winger should have a plan for a Dan Marino in the backfield. An air raid coach should have a plan for a team like Nebraska in their day. I think at the small school level, which is what I have been talking about all along (and keep in mind small school in Texas isn't the same as in Kansas) a coach needs to be very flexible in terms of scheme. If I remember correctly Dan Marino played in wing-t system in high school and they threw the ball around a good bit.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jan 16, 2008 13:42:19 GMT -6
For those who stuck with a scheme and had success after running it for a while......do you believe that it all comes down to execution? I mean are your teams better because the Os have been blocking the same Xs for the last 10 years or is it that you've had time to teach the down block to all of your kids in the program from pee wees though the high school and the benefits are being reaped after several years? Are you a better coach now than 10 years ago? In what area have you gotten better the most - in scheme or in teaching technique? I would guess technique. You are a better team because the kids can execute because you are better at teaching them how to make the blocks you are asking them to make. Do you think Smith Center was as awesome this year as they were because they have ran the "Barta Bone" since kindegarten or is it because they do such a great job out there teaching the kids to block and fake (and not to mention the value of the weight room - they physically outmatched EVERY opponent ALL year). My point is, if in my spread game I had plays where the line blocked down and the back kicked out for a QB offtackle play and now I go to the single wing and have the same play just from a set that allows me to do more things with the guys I have for the next 4 years, and in 4 years I go back to the spread and have the same play again, were is the problem or inconsistency for the kids? Maybe I am arguing for this "toolbox" idea that others are suggesting. Am I making sense that the thing I am advocating against is a wholesale commitment to a scheme that will not allow your players NOW to be as successful as possible. I guess I would say any double winger should have a plan for a Dan Marino in the backfield. An air raid coach should have a plan for a team like Nebraska in their day. I think at the small school level, which is what I have been talking about all along (and keep in mind small school in Texas isn't the same as in Kansas) a coach needs to be very flexible in terms of scheme. This DW coach has plenty of pass plays in the playbook for a Dan Marino, but we would still run our core offense and supplement with more of Marino's favorite pass plays. now cmon superpower, you have to scrap everything you believe in for one kid! lol how stupid would that be...then the kids parents call you and tell you hes going to be at a banquet for his little brother whos pee wee team won the league championship...you cant play the kid. or..he gets arrested in a parking lot brawl against the rival basketball team.... ...or he gets caught drinking...or suspended for sexual harrassment or drugs or whatever..... you pick the system, the kids dont determine the system...the kids determine what plays you call sure. Im with you, if i have a great thrower fantastic, we can throw more.
|
|
|
Post by knighter on Jan 16, 2008 14:12:02 GMT -6
I am a doublewinger, and I had a first team (unanimous by the way) all district and all state (also unanimous) quarterback.
His stats: 39 of 70 passing for 882 yards and 13 TD's with only 4 INT's (Senior Year) 27 of 55 passing for 790 yards and 13 TD's with only 1 INT (Junior Year)
Career Record was 20-2 as my starting QB.
He was asked to walk on at several smaller Div. 1 schools, and was offered money by many other Div. 2 and NAIA schools. He had a cannon, was smart, and could make every read he needed to in our system.
We never changed a thing, ran the same pass plays for 7 years at my former school.
Don't give me that you have to "change" your system for a "Dan Marino" type kid. A kid like that fits into your system and you use his strengths to make your system better.
By the way the most passes I ever called in a season while at my former job was 77 and the fewest was 45....so as you can see we did not change anything.
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Jan 16, 2008 14:46:10 GMT -6
My point is, if in my spread game I had plays where the line blocked down and the back kicked out for a QB offtackle play and now I go to the single wing and have the same play just from a set that allows me to do more things with the guys I have for the next 4 years, and in 4 years I go back to the spread and have the same play again, were is the problem or inconsistency for the kids?
To me, that is an evolution of the system and not a changing of systems. I know we've talked about this a bit outside of this forum, but our SW is no different than our I/Wing sets- we just take out a QB and put in a Blocking back. Our playcalls are mostly the same and our blocking is identical (a trap for under C is a trap in Gun, etc.) If you go SW, than that is an extension of your system except maybe you replace a WR with a Blocking back or another halfback. The longer I've coached in a small school the more I've realized there is a need for continuity. I coach the JH team as well and we run the same plays. We run a tiny fraction of the formations we run on varsity, we only run one motion... but everything we ran this year (with a freshman QB) was something he ran in JH. That's pretty important when you lose your senior, 3 year starter 2 weeks before the season (as you know). We will modify our base formations, we might even emphasize certain play calls from year to year- but the system really doesn't change.
Am I making sense that the thing I am advocating against is a wholesale commitment to a scheme that will not allow your players NOW to be as successful as possible. I guess I would say any double winger should have a plan for a Dan Marino in the backfield. An air raid coach should have a plan for a team like Nebraska in their day. I think at the small school level, which is what I have been talking about all along (and keep in mind small school in Texas isn't the same as in Kansas) a coach needs to be very flexible in terms of scheme.
Many have said this... but I will reiterate- a good "system" will have within it the adaptability to take advantage of certain talents. So yes, I guess the toolbox analogy fits.
by the way, dcohio:
We actually stumbled on to the "do what you do" concept. My first year as a DC I was a blitz every down, defense of the week...setup to attack their offense minded coach. Offensively, our HC was also a young guy (we're the same age) and we were an offense of the week designed to attack that specific defense. Guess what...we sucked. Think of the worst team you've seen...we were worse than that.
Following that year I sat down with 3 years worth of game film on our opponents. I was particularly interested in the little Division 5, 8 time State Champion films. After breaking one year down, I started to break the year before down and noticed that it was going back through what I just did. So then I flipped it around and I started looking at their defense...also a 44 and looking at how they played all of their positions. Guess what, from year to year, HOW it was played stayed the same, the only difference was the number of the kid doing it.
That is when my light went on.
I'm not sure our careers could be any more similar. Maybe we were twins separated at birth (for your sake, I hope this is not the case... no one else should have to be like me... as I've heard "fat drunk and stupid is no way to go through life".)
|
|
|
Post by bluecrazy on Jan 17, 2008 8:56:29 GMT -6
Thank-you to all the opinions on this thread. I have enjoyed them all. I don't say a whole lot on this forum, bu I sure do enjoy all the wisdom that is on here. God bless, and thanks again. bluecrazy
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Jan 17, 2008 9:12:44 GMT -6
All this "system" talk is crazy. Everyone knows that you write down your favorite 20 plays from the NFL and College games and that becomes your playbook. On game day you wrtite down the plays on a little pieces of paper and put them in grocery sack and blindly draw them out. All you people that "study" and "run what you know" are crazy....LOL
|
|
bhb
Junior Member
Posts: 259
|
Post by bhb on Jan 17, 2008 9:26:38 GMT -6
. I certainly dont think id change my whole system for one or two players though. To me that is not running a program. I think you want to give your program an identity. Perhaps the tool box is the identity, that and the core values and conditioning program. Great point.. DCohio said it perfect when he stated that the best teams, year in and year out, run the same stuff.. They don't always have the best players year in and year out- but they know THEIR systems so well that they can handle things such as influxes in talent- both up and down.. That's one of the benefits of mastering (for lack of a better word) YOUR systems- and you just can't master a specific scheme when you completely change it season to season based on specific talents of a few players- at least I can't.. I agree with the Coaches that feel that having enough tools in the box is the best approach..
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jan 17, 2008 9:31:39 GMT -6
Someone brought up a comparison between a tool box and a grab bag, one thing, Ill disagree that they are the same thing. For example, a grab bag might have sweep, option, jet, fly, and rocket to get outside....but have nothing that hits off tackle with the same look or even a counter to any of that...tool box to me means that if they take away A then you have to consider B and C that force them to continue to defend A while you attack the weaknesses elsewhere. Series football.
I like to start simple, a "straight series" or "full flow" meaning we hit each hole with power and numbers.... the straight series should have counters and play action off its action
then the "split flow" where we can also hit each hole with backs threatening multiple flanks and midline as well. The split flow should have counters and play action off its action...
now, regarding changing talent...it shouldnt make me change my play design? it might just make me change how often I call certain plays. It might make me split a te out or motion a wing out now and again...but thats all. Im not going to start looking for a whole new offense just because I have one or two studs that come once in every 10 year period.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jan 17, 2008 9:49:47 GMT -6
Everyone knows that you write down your favorite 20 plays from the NFL and College games and that becomes your playbook. That is Bull!!!! You get the plays from Madden 2008.
|
|
|
Post by ajreaper on Jan 17, 2008 10:56:05 GMT -6
All this "system" talk is crazy. Everyone knows that you write down your favorite 20 plays from the NFL and College games and that becomes your playbook. On game day you wrtite down the plays on a little pieces of paper and put them in grocery sack and blindly draw them out. All you people that "study" and "run what you know" are crazy....LOL Madden 08 is a great resource as well!
|
|
|
Post by miami5 on Jan 17, 2008 11:11:36 GMT -6
On that note, changing systems every year is not a good thing. Changing some parts of your system or adopting some aspects yes.
Ledyard high school in Connecticut just won another state title. Billy has been running the wing-t since he started coaching back before time. He is the winning-est coach in CT . i played against him and now we coach against each other.
I do no that he does adopt minor things of his system to his talent. What is important down there is that the Micro teams run the same thing, by the time they get to high school all they have to work on is technique and getting better. They do not have to learn knew terminology,plays formations etc. I just watched a clinic tape of Bill Walsh and he talked about this very subject. he laughed as he said they ran 3 different offense's ALL IN ONE YEAR at one school he coached at. I get this from some of my asst. coaches ( not any more) and parents. WHY don't you do this or that, did you see that FLORIDA ( last year)game maybe we should run that offense, as i tell jokingly, Did we get some new transfers i don't no about..
oh well enough on that.
|
|
|
Post by CoachMikeJudy on Jan 17, 2008 11:41:15 GMT -6
I have been guilty of this in the past- completely overhauling the offense in the preseason. The funny thing is, I went from zone blocking, 1back and I back stuff to a hybrid wing-t system in hopes of easier teaching/learnign curve for high school athletes- huge mistake.
I'm a zone blocking, power run game guy. I have established my way of doing things and need to stop fighting it. I know how to teach zone blocking and backfield fundamentals- I have experience doing it. I am currently not in a coordinator position, but when the opportunity arises, I will run what I know and stop wasting my time.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jan 17, 2008 12:09:32 GMT -6
I am a doublewinger, and I had a first team (unanimous by the way) all district and all state (also unanimous) quarterback. His stats: 39 of 70 passing for 882 yards and 13 TD's with only 4 INT's (Senior Year) 27 of 55 passing for 790 yards and 13 TD's with only 1 INT (Junior Year) Career Record was 20-2 as my starting QB. He was asked to walk on at several smaller Div. 1 schools, and was offered money by many other Div. 2 and NAIA schools. He had a cannon, was smart, and could make every read he needed to in our system. We never changed a thing, ran the same pass plays for 7 years at my former school. Don't give me that you have to "change" your system for a "Dan Marino" type kid. A kid like that fits into your system and you use his strengths to make your system better. By the way the most passes I ever called in a season while at my former job was 77 and the fewest was 45....so as you can see we did not change anything. Golly what would the quarterback efficiency rating be on those numbers ? 250?
|
|
|
Post by knighter on Jan 17, 2008 12:53:41 GMT -6
Not sure dave. I am not smart enough to know how to figure that out! Too much math!
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Jan 17, 2008 13:24:09 GMT -6
His stats: 39 of 70 passing for 882 yards and 13 TD's with only 4 INT's (Senior Year) 27 of 55 passing for 790 yards and 13 TD's with only 1 INT (Junior Year) . Golly what would the quarterback efficiency rating be on those numbers ? 250? Senior Year: 211.41 Junior Year: 244.11 Passer efficiency though does favor fewer attempts since the whole formula is based on per attempt averages. So a QB that is 140 for 200 for 2500 yards, 21 TDs and 0 INTs would have a passer rating of 209.65 which is worse than this kid had either of his two seasons. Passing efficiency is not the greatest measure.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Jan 17, 2008 13:30:53 GMT -6
Everyone should run pro-I.
Then, see what they run out of Pro-I.
Calande runs Power Pitch
Brophy runs IZ
spreadattack runs mesh
hemlock runs switch
FlexboneOne runs option
Huey runs his smash
Tog runs counter GT
ADAPTING without SCRAPING is the name of the game.
|
|
|
Post by jraybern on Jan 17, 2008 13:54:11 GMT -6
There was a kid we played against (3 year starter at QB) who in 3 seasons threw over 150 passes and had 4 ints. This season (his senior year) the first int (and only one) he threw all season was in the second round of the playoffs - the 11th game of the season.
|
|
|
Post by wingman on Jan 17, 2008 14:02:10 GMT -6
Can I get some more info on this 'Chubacbre Face Melter Special'? We play teams with a lot of goats and I think it might work for us.
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Jan 17, 2008 14:20:23 GMT -6
As I have stated before, have a philosophy in what your do. Have a system, which matches that philosophy. And from in that framework, adjust to the talent you have.
2 years ago our best play was Left blue Fly 82 (down off of a fly sweep fake). This last year we had a terrible OLine. Most kids were about 170lbs (playing in the highest divsion in Idaho 5A). Our adjustment: Gun left Fly 82 (which we did not run as much as fly sweep off of it or QB Keep). Same system, but adapted.
You could do the same adjustment and go double tight double wing, could you not?
Like I have said before, you either have to spread them out or bring them in, but you better know it and understand it or you will not be very good at it.
If you don't "coach what you know", you are a fool. Granted, if you feel it is time to "Change" your system, you should only do that if you "Change" your philosophy. Otherwise adapt what you believe in.
One thing we rarely mention here is the fact that much of our success is directly related to the athletes we have. Two years ago we were 8-2, this last year we were 1-7. I am not sure that it was because we got so much dumber. Coaching is important, don't get me wrong, but at the end of the day it is about the kids you have.
|
|