|
Post by coachcb on Jul 18, 2007 16:00:21 GMT -6
So, we talk all the time about which schemes work with minimal talent and why they do so.
Lets flip it around; what are some specific offenses that require a bit talent at one or more positions to be run?
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 18, 2007 16:19:39 GMT -6
seriously?
how may different ways can we have this same discussion?
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jul 18, 2007 16:32:22 GMT -6
pro I
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jul 18, 2007 16:43:35 GMT -6
Hey, everyone keeps pointing out the offenses that don't require talent; lets see if we can name a few that do.
I think the Air Raid style spread is an offense that requires quite a alot of talent at QB and at WR.
|
|
|
Post by ttowntiger on Jul 18, 2007 17:18:55 GMT -6
I don't know why people think that to throw the ball, you have to have better people than your opponent. I think just the opposite. To get in the power I and run it down everybody's throat, you'd better have better material than your opponents, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jul 18, 2007 17:23:45 GMT -6
IMO- the deep step concepts of the Air Raid offense take a good QB to run.
|
|
|
Post by ttowntiger on Jul 18, 2007 17:36:46 GMT -6
Passing offenses like the Air Raid just require repetition. You don't have to have a strong armed QB or receivers with 4.4 speed. Look at Texas Tech. Most of their QB's have been just average ability wise for the D1 level. No Jemarcus Russell or Brady Quinn type talent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2007 17:42:08 GMT -6
I agree with Calande and ttowntiger if you mean a power running game with I formation. If you mainly option with the I, it can be run with minimal talent. I do also agree with brophy's thread assessment, though.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 18, 2007 17:48:09 GMT -6
take it however you want, but I heard a very succesful coach say
"you are never without quality talent when you coach your players up"
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Jul 18, 2007 20:05:34 GMT -6
Again, it's the same argument for every offense:
Can't run Pro-I without a TB and a TE.
Can't run the spread without a QB and WR's.
Can't run Wing-T without 3 good backs.
...
You can run any offense you want as long as you understand it and coach it up. That's really it. It's just that simple.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Jul 18, 2007 22:05:41 GMT -6
don't want to burst anyone's bubble about "coaching" .. but let's look at it realistically ...
coaching does matter
players do matter
however, the further about my players are from your players ... the less our coaching comes into play.
i may be able to call the right play based on the defense you're in .. but if the gap is that large, it will not have much of an affect ... at least not to the extent it will if the gap between our 2 groups is smaller.
which is why, teams that win it all have both great coaching/scheme/play-calling and good players in the RIGHT positions.
but, honestly ... you think ANY quality of team (with good coaching) can beat a good team (that has TREMENDOUSLY more talent)? not likely. can a team that is less talented beat a team that is more talented? of course ... but things must be done to close that gap -- and the gap can't be too large in the first place. if you don't believe me, take the state champ from your area, give 'em 6 coaches that are hell on wheels in madden '07. then take the worst team in the area --- give 'em the best staff you can, practice 'em for a couple of weeks --- then go at it.
now, before someone comes on here and says the same 'ol "coaching matters, blah, blah" .. i agree with you. but, it matters MORE when the gap between the 2 teams is lessoned. again, i'm not saying the most talented team wins ... not at all. a school's "program" plays a major role in closing that gap (discipline, work ethic, practice habits, conditioning, intangibles, etc.) ... but there is a gap that must be made up (a talent gap) ... and, if you scheme/program, etc. can't close that gap to a manageable margin ... then your "magical" offense is not as effective.
again ... to summarize ...
coaching matters -- it helps close the talent gap. however, players matter too. how you run your program matters, too. all of these things go together. but, if coaching is equal (practice/preparation/off season, etc.) and talent is equal, then it comes down to play-calling ... does "scheme" really matter as much as calling the right plays at the right time - formation/scheme not withstanding ....
so, coach the heck out of your kids. close that gap by preparing them --- make them well conditioned, well trained, effective, technically sound .... play-call the heck out of those defenses ... and get the gap close enough so that what you call (your coaching) DOES matter and get a win.
|
|
|
Post by tog on Jul 18, 2007 22:11:52 GMT -6
ditto huey
i know how it feels to be on the end of both sides of that talent gap and know that the staff's that i have been on have pushed it farther or closed it together as far as we could, we put the kids in position to make the plays and we put them in favorable situations more often than not
chicken salad baby
|
|
|
Post by CVBears on Jul 18, 2007 22:13:49 GMT -6
double wing
pro I
wing t
take your pick for coaching or player talent, or wherever in between. I lean towards coaching talent on these three.
Insert XXX offense here to coincide with same point
|
|
|
Post by coach79 on Jul 18, 2007 23:17:15 GMT -6
Jamarcus is a hack!!!
|
|
kc361
Freshmen Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by kc361 on Jul 19, 2007 8:35:36 GMT -6
Any offense that requires either...
(1) an OL to block a DL with leverage (like reaching a 3-tech)
or
(2) a RB to make a defender miss (within 5 yards of the LOS)
or
(3) a WR to get open against 2 defenders (bracket or over/under)
is an offense that requires superior talent.
just a thought
kc
|
|
|
Post by spartancoach on Jul 19, 2007 9:14:24 GMT -6
Huey stole my response . . . word for word no less.
|
|
|
Post by wingt74 on Jul 19, 2007 9:18:00 GMT -6
Great Coaching / Great Talent beats Average Coaching / Great Talent Beats Poor Coaching / Great Talent Beats Great Coaching / Average Talent beats Average Coaching / Average Talent beats Poor Coaching / Average Talent beats Great Coaching / Poor Talent Beats Average Coaching / Poor Talent Beats Poor Coaching / Poor Talent
period.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 19, 2007 9:50:03 GMT -6
This isn't a coaching vs talent thread. This is a very interesting question that plays upon a very common perception in coaching that certain offenses really facilitate lesser talent. Therefore any offense that is not considered one of those offenses must ,by default, require GREATER talent to execute.
So, if such a beast does not exist, then doesn't that negate the premise it is derived from?
|
|
|
Post by airman on Jul 19, 2007 12:07:44 GMT -6
i do not care what offense you pick, they all require talent to be good. all you really need is a offensive line. I have come to believe he who has the better offensive line will will the game. I do not care what offense you run. you can pass, run, dw, option. it all comes down to the 5 up front.
I will say one on one driving blocking is the easist run scheme. if you can block one on one, you will not have problems.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jul 19, 2007 14:29:18 GMT -6
Dittos to Huey, Coaching and Scheme and playcalling all matter. If a reasonable gap in talent is there, it can be overcome, if the gap is massive, the above can lessen the blow, but a loss will probably be in the cards. IMHO opinion those offenses that require their players to block one on one and operate "in space" inherently require more talent than those that utilize lots of double teams, trapping and working in tight quarters ( super speed and athleticism not required).
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Jul 19, 2007 14:58:35 GMT -6
IMHO opinion those offenses that require their players to block one on one and operate "in space" inherently require more talent than those that utilize lots of double teams, trapping and working in tight quarters ( super speed and athleticism not required). Why does "operating in space" require super speed and athleticism?
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jul 19, 2007 15:03:30 GMT -6
Dittos to Huey, Coaching and Scheme and playcalling all matter. If a reasonable gap in talent is there, it can be overcome, if the gap is massive, the above can lessen the blow, but a loss will probably be in the cards. IMHO opinion those offenses that require their players to block one on one and operate "in space" inherently require more talent than those that utilize lots of double teams, trapping and working in tight quarters ( super speed and athleticism not required). Good point... HOWEVER, there are certain coaches out there, that never have the huge gaps in talent as opposed to their competition. Sure there are years where the talent is better, and they usually win a state championship, but when the talent is not as great, they don't go in the tank, they remain respectable. As a matter of fact they are always respectable. Matt Sefner... old coach of Providence Catholic in Illinois... started his first 3 years, butt ugly... after that, he never had a losing season, not to mention all the state championships he won. Without getting into the public v private issue... once he was able to mature a freshman to a senior, never again was their a talent gap, in which he was on the bad side. His kids were always talented enough to compete, if not win it all. I'm sure you all know of coaches, that never are bad, just not as good as other years. Which leads me to my point. The great coaching, isn't the x's and o's, the calling of the right plays at the right time... but more so, getting the 90lb freshman to buy into the system, become dedicated to the weight room, and grow into that awesome 150lb senior that accentuates that stud 6'2 220 Running QB/LB. That's coaching... and that's the difference maker, be damned what system you run. And O'lines don't play each other... they play against D'lines, so maybe its not how good your O'line is, but how bad is their D'line?
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Jul 19, 2007 15:16:58 GMT -6
The great coaching, isn't the x's and o's, the calling of the right plays at the right time... but more so, getting the 90lb freshman to buy into the system, become dedicated to the weight room, and grow into that awesome 150lb senior that accentuates that stud 6'2 220 Running QB/LB. That's coaching... and that's the difference maker, be damned what system you run. Great stuff, Khal!
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jul 19, 2007 17:53:04 GMT -6
Great Coaching / Great Talent beats Average Coaching / Great Talent Beats Poor Coaching / Great Talent Beats Great Coaching / Average Talent beats Average Coaching / Average Talent beats Poor Coaching / Average Talent beats Great Coaching / Poor Talent Beats Average Coaching / Poor Talent Beats Poor Coaching / Poor Talent period. i REALLY dont agree with the idea that great coaching with avg players loses to poor coaching with great talent...but then again who cares is we dont agree on that right? I just have seen over and over again poor coaches blow game after game because they are so disorganized and really completely clueless in just about every area of running a team. eh..
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Jul 19, 2007 18:13:48 GMT -6
This is a real important question for me and I would really appreciate some feed back.
Can I ask a more pointed question somewhat off the post subject, however, on the tangent subject?
What is a better fit for a coach? To be at a school with great talent and average coaching, or to a school with average talent and great coaching?
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Jul 19, 2007 18:16:04 GMT -6
Good post khalfie. I could not have said it better myself. We have had two head coaches since 1970. When the man took over he went something like 0-9, 1-8, 2-7, then went .500 and the program has NEVER been less than .500 since. We don't do everything perfect, and we did not invent football or anything like that, but we do develop kids into solid varsity players.
|
|
|
Post by tog on Jul 19, 2007 18:59:37 GMT -6
calande our definitions of bad coaching might be different then
dave to me, using misdirection and double teams is an awesome tool to close the gap the thing i think helps it even more is this
if you are a bunched in formation wise offense and the superior talent takes a wrong step then they can still get to your ballcarrier/receiver
if you are threatening the entire field horizontally and vertically then you are giving your average to below average athletes more room, this makes the superior opponent have to go farther after his mistep or bad read to then chase down your slow weak and puny athlete
spreading the field out is a major advantage to lesser athletes getting the ball to them efficiently is the issue that most people have with this
there are ways to get it done
|
|
|
Post by fbdoc on Jul 19, 2007 19:13:27 GMT -6
Old way - Full house, 2 TE's, 3 yards and a cloud of dust.
Spread formations begin to appear - WHY? As Tog put it ... you have too many "slow weak and puny athletes".
Why does the spread work better than compressed formations? It eliminates a defense from being able to place 2 studs in the BOX and domiante your Tackle to Tackle scheme.
All the same statements that Huey and others have made about Coaching (strategy, tactics, motivation and organization) narrowing the TALENT gap still apply to this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Jul 20, 2007 4:03:40 GMT -6
calande our definitions of bad coaching might be different then dave to me, using misdirection and double teams is an awesome tool to close the gap the thing i think helps it even more is this if you are a bunched in formation wise offense and the superior talent takes a wrong step then they can still get to your ballcarrier/receiver if you are threatening the entire field horizontally and vertically then you are giving your average to below average athletes more room, this makes the superior opponent have to go farther after his mistep or bad read to then chase down your slow weak and puny athlete spreading the field out is a major advantage to lesser athletes getting the ball to them efficiently is the issue that most people have with this there are ways to get it done Tog- this is interesting really how coaches think about these things. I love the compressed formations with 0 line splits as a great equalizer: here are some simple examples of why 1) the tight splits make double teaming even with poor footwork, much easier to accomplish- the double teams land defenders in linebackers laps, they have to go over the hump or under it, another equalizer. they have no windows to shoot (ever see mike singletary shoot thru a window? hed not be able to do that nearly as well if there were a bunched 0 splits formation) 2) the tight splits hide the backfield action 3) the tight splits shorten the distance to the flanks so our slow guys can get there fast, so our linemen can pull around the flanks faster but the defenders, who might be much faster than us are having trouble seeing the ball, reading thru the congestion and having some issues tripping over each other because they are not accustomed to playing in a phone booth, thats one equalizer in itself. 4) the compressed formation presents more blockign threats to the dt, de, linbackers and secondary. we come at em from all angles and its much harder to read due to the congestion. 5) and heres one of the biggest advantages...screening. accidental blocks, that is, there are accidental double teams, two for one blocks, three for one blocks...that stuff just doesnt happen in space with nearly the same frequency. now about your example, a kid who runs a 4.6 is going to make up ground much faster in space then a kid who runs a 4.9 or 5 flat. in a phone booth however that 4.6 kid is never going to hit full stride. quickness, shedding blocks then becomes more of a factor than speed. interesting discussion.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jul 20, 2007 5:02:51 GMT -6
When we have athletes and speed, we go to plays and formations in our offense that allows those players to play in space and use their speed. The less athleticism and speed we have the more compressed we get. See Calandes post, same reasons.
Example why faster=space, slower=compressed When doing open field tackling or open field blocking drills, do slower, weaker, less athletic kids excell or usually fail in big spaces? They usually do quite poorly. Now if you put 2 Dummmies 1 yard apart and ask the same unathletic player to do a close quarters blocking or tackling drill, agains the very same player, how is he going to do? At least in this situation he at least has a chance and may get a piece of the kid.
|
|